Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#41

Post by AshamedCaptain »

temac wrote: post #32
BaseballPhysics wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they can remove that code from their kernel tree and repackage and redistribute it as a separate binary module.

If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered not a derived work of Linux. The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.

The problem is that here you are not just distributing what is possibly a derived work (the kernel modules themselves), like what NV was doing. Here you are distributing a single enduser product which contains both the actual GPL work itself (the kernel) AND the kernel modules combined in a way that's essential for the product itself (i.e. it's not "mere aggregation"). That's a much more fragile position, and I rather doubt that whether the modules are a "derived work" or not plays a role, since if anything you are violating the kernel license/distribution terms themselves.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#42

Post by pengaru »

sokoloff wrote: post #37
pengaru wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A phone shipping without an operating system at all would make it unusable for the vast majority of the general public. You're assuming the bootstrapping process is complicated, manual, and failure-prone though. There's absolutely no reason why the initial boot couldn't simply involve plugging an included usb thumbdrive into the usb port and turning the device on. It comes on in an uninitialized state, finds an app…

What prevents that initial image from locking the bootloader to prevent the installation of alternate images (possibly by blowing fuses or another OTP mechanism)? Addressing only the first-boot problem doesn't guarantee down the line ability, which seems more important to me than first-boot ability.

If we had regulatory consumer protections at this level, I think it goes without saying the same regulations would require any such locking down during the initial provisioning would require opt-in by the consumer.

The intended salient point of my previous comment is there's just no reason for this to be something impossible to navigate for the majority of users.

Personally I think it's important for the provisioning to be part of the process for everyone to undergo. When it's effectively part of the unboxing process, it ensures manufacturers invest in maintaining and polishing the functionality. It will be less buggy, it will be less error-prone, and it helps educate the public on the otherwise invisible line separating firmware/software from hardware.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#43

Post by aftbit »

isodev wrote: post #31
DiabloD3 wrote: post #13

This happens every new Android version with OnePlus. OnePlus releases them usually a few months behind the end of initially release cycle getting all the older phones onto the newer build. Covid has been making this worse, plus people left the team when Oppo and OnePlus merged teams. Kinda wish they would just stop doing it, but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user suppl…

> this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead I think this goes against the main reason people buy phones from mainstream brands. The reason is the features and ecosystem that come with such devices. If you are a tinkerer or prefer to install your custom OS, then you'd choose a "foss" device like the pinephone, librem or other. If you buy a device for convenie…

>If you are a tinkerer or prefer to install your custom OS, then you'd choose a "foss" device like the pinephone, librem or other.

Except the hardware and ecosystem of those suck in comparison to The Big 2 (iPhone and Android). If I could install a custom OS on iPhone, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Otherwise I'm stuck with AOSP on my Pixel.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#44

Post by chrismorgan »

dagmx wrote: post #40
DiabloD3 wrote: post #13

This happens every new Android version with OnePlus. OnePlus releases them usually a few months behind the end of initially release cycle getting all the older phones onto the newer build. Covid has been making this worse, plus people left the team when Oppo and OnePlus merged teams. Kinda wish they would just stop doing it, but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user suppl…

> but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead Do you believe this is something most people would want as a product experience, or something most people would be capable of doing?

If it were the rule across the board, they’d make it easy and pleasant.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#45

Post by car_analogy »

isodev wrote: post #31
DiabloD3 wrote: post #13

This happens every new Android version with OnePlus. OnePlus releases them usually a few months behind the end of initially release cycle getting all the older phones onto the newer build. Covid has been making this worse, plus people left the team when Oppo and OnePlus merged teams. Kinda wish they would just stop doing it, but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user suppl…

> this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead I think this goes against the main reason people buy phones from mainstream brands. The reason is the features and ecosystem that come with such devices. If you are a tinkerer or prefer to install your custom OS, then you'd choose a "foss" device like the pinephone, librem or other. If you buy a device for convenie…

> I think this goes against the main reason people buy phones from mainstream brands. The reason is the features and ecosystem that come with such devices.

I.e. anti-competitive bundling of software and hardware. There is no reason one could not buy a generic phone, the same as one buys a generic PC, and then install whatever "mainstream" OS one wants.

You are also assuming that because installing an alternate OS is difficult now (in large part because manufacturers make it difficult, if not impossible), it would continue to be just as difficult in the future.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#46

Post by usrn »

dagmx wrote: post #40
DiabloD3 wrote: post #13

This happens every new Android version with OnePlus. OnePlus releases them usually a few months behind the end of initially release cycle getting all the older phones onto the newer build. Covid has been making this worse, plus people left the team when Oppo and OnePlus merged teams. Kinda wish they would just stop doing it, but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user suppl…

> but this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead Do you believe this is something most people would want as a product experience, or something most people would be capable of doing?

Most of these SoCs can boot from SDcards so you'd probably buy a phone+boot disk at the same time.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#47

Post by sokoloff »

pengaru wrote: post #42
sokoloff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What prevents that initial image from locking the bootloader to prevent the installation of alternate images (possibly by blowing fuses or another OTP mechanism)? Addressing only the first-boot problem doesn't guarantee down the line ability, which seems more important to me than first-boot ability.

If we had regulatory consumer protections at this level, I think it goes without saying the same regulations would require any such locking down during the initial provisioning would require opt-in by the consumer. The intended salient point of my previous comment is there's just no reason for this to be something impossible to navigate for the majority of users. Personally I think it's important for the provisioning…

If you had a strong regulatory framework, it seems like it would suffice for the law to include "it must be possible to install an alternate OS image without the use of tools [other than cables supplied with the device]; completely wiping the device may be required to prepare it for an alternate OS."

I don't see it being a good tradeoff to make hundreds of millions of users take the action and wait out the delay of an OS installation so that tens of thousands of users can feel more smugly guaranteed that they'll be able to install an alternate OS. If you're willing to guarantee an install is possible, allowing a default OS installation seems consumer-friendly on balance to me.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#48

Post by isodev »

aftbit wrote: post #43
isodev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead I think this goes against the main reason people buy phones from mainstream brands. The reason is the features and ecosystem that come with such devices. If you are a tinkerer or prefer to install your custom OS, then you'd choose a "foss" device like the pinephone, librem or other. If you buy a device for convenie…

>If you are a tinkerer or prefer to install your custom OS, then you'd choose a "foss" device like the pinephone, librem or other. Except the hardware and ecosystem of those suck in comparison to The Big 2 (iPhone and Android). If I could install a custom OS on iPhone, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Otherwise I'm stuck with AOSP on my Pixel.

> Except the hardware and ecosystem of those suck in comparison to The Big 2 (iPhone and Android).

Yes, and the irony is that Apple can afford to develop impressive hardware thanks to their "vertically integrated" offering. People like it and spend a lot of money to have it.

Why don't FOSS phones have the budget to create this kind of experience then? Maybe there are ways for this to be improved, or perhaps we shouldn't try to decouple a phone from the ecosystem it was created for.

A lot of money and energy is now being pointed at trying to make Apple and Google loosen their grip on hardware. At the same time (in my view), this would not address the root cause, which is that there are no effective means for economic advantage generated by foss software on proprietary hardware to find its way back to the community.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#49

Post by usrn »

aftbit wrote: post #43
isodev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is why phones maybe shouldn't ship with a working OS anyways and make the user supply it instead I think this goes against the main reason people buy phones from mainstream brands. The reason is the features and ecosystem that come with such devices. If you are a tinkerer or prefer to install your custom OS, then you'd choose a "foss" device like the pinephone, librem or other. If you buy a device for convenie…

>If you are a tinkerer or prefer to install your custom OS, then you'd choose a "foss" device like the pinephone, librem or other. Except the hardware and ecosystem of those suck in comparison to The Big 2 (iPhone and Android). If I could install a custom OS on iPhone, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Otherwise I'm stuck with AOSP on my Pixel.

Not having to run Android makes up for the mediocre hardware on the Pinephone IMO. Also Linux has a far more healthy ecosystem than Android.

Re: Oneplus GPL violation for Android 12 Kernel

#50

Post by teddyh »

ghaff wrote: post #36
temac wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If running in kernel mode under Linux, it is debatable whether most separate binary modules can and are effectively organized in a way they can be considered not a derived work of Linux. The only one I've personally seen managing to do that without much doubt was nvidia.

The binary blobs question has never really been resolved. You'll find kernel devs and other open source community members on both sides of the issue. My sense is that most have no interest in forcing the issue. The closest (something similar) came to being forced was the VMware ESX-related GPL case but that ended up dismissed for unrelated reasons.

This is not the “binary blobs” issue (which is still debated, as you say). This is the “binary kernel modules” issue, which is pretty much settled: Even though they are commonly used and distributed, the kernel can never explicitly allow it! This is what would happen if they did: https://lwn.net/Articles/162686/
Post reply on HN